MEfiDE 


3 


IBO 




K 1197 
51st 
13 P4 
spy 2 




THE PLOT THAT FAILED 


i 

t 

f 

t 


T 

I 


1 

; 

X 



Official Records Which Show Conclusively that the 
Chicago Tribune Employed Burns Detectives, 
Who Manufactured Evidence Intended 
to Convict an Honest Man of 
the Crime of Perjury 


□ 


i 

i 


f 

i 


f 

i 

: 


I 

i 

i 

t 

t 


: 

f 


[p[pcp 


Startling Exposure of a Deliberate Conspiracy Against 
Senator WilliamlLorimer and Edward Hines 


[pcpcp 


By FREDERICK UPHAM ADAMS 






Is] 


i 

4 

4 

t 


f 

4 

f 

f 

I 

4 

« 

i 

4 

4 

f 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

: 

f 

4 

i 


f 

f 

I 

f 




] cm 










































































-f':. 

V- -r-^s- < J: 


t,,-A <■ ' t'^ 


'.•514 .i^i’. 


J. .i -y^ > 


f ‘ - ' ' j'<'-'A '■ i '■|.■,ti ''jQ^' v' '''"£ 

^ y' I-, I '■’■ -V* :^. ' •' V 

H ^'t:*’f d'4V-^ f"- 









THE PLOT THAT FAILED 



Official Records Which Show Conclusively that 
the Chicago Tribune Employed Burns De¬ 
tectives, Who Manufactured Evidence 
Intended to Convict an Honest 
Man of the Crime of Perjury 




Startling Exposure of a Deliberate Conspiracy 
Against Senator William Lorimer and 
Edward Hines 

[t3Ct3Ct] 

> # 

> > 

By FREDERICK UPHAM ADAMS 

♦ 















THE PLOT THAT FAILED 


Official Records Which Show Conclusively that the Chicago 
Tribune Employed Burns Detectives,Who Manufac¬ 
tured Evidence Intended to Convict an Hon¬ 
est Man of the Crime of Perjury 

STARTLING EXPOSURE OF A DELIBERATE CON¬ 
SPIRACY AGAINST SENATOR WILLIAM LORIMER 

AND EDWARD HINES 


By FREDEI^ICK UPHAM ADAMS 

On these pages appears the official proof that a deliberate conspiracy has 
been framed against Senator William Lorimer. This proof was furnished, not 
by the defense, but by witnesses called by the Senatorial Investigating Com¬ 
mittee. It tells the tale of detectives who were detected in an act which covers 
with infamy those who employed them. 

Senator Lorimer has claimed from the start that the campaign waged against 
him was based on a criminal conspiracy. Edward Hines has been powerless, 
until now, to stem the flood of abuse, manufactured evidence and open perjury 
which has covered the official records. Hot one line of verifled evidence has 
been uttered against Mr. Hines which would be accepted in a court of law, but 
it was made possible, under the rules of the recent hearing, for the conspirators 
to smirch his reputation by methods which never again will be tolerated by a 
Congressional committee. ; 

Hot until the closing week of the prolonged sessions of the Dillingham Com¬ 
mittee was the work of the plotters clearly unmasked. The broad light of day 
was then turned on some of the principals in this conspiracy, and the climax 
came when their employees were detected in an attempt of villainy, the bold¬ 
ness of which was rivalled only by the stupidity with which it was executed. 

William M. Burgess, a bitter personal enemy of Edward Hines, was one of 
the original tools used by the conspirators. Burgess was induced to appear 
before the Dillingham Committee last July. He swore that on March 8, 1911, 
C. F. Wiehe, relative and business associate of Mr. Hines, boasted in the 
smoking compartment of a Pullman car that he (Wiehe) had contributed 
$10,000 to a Lorimer corruption fund. Five business men of high standing 






THE PLOT THAT FAILED. 


3 


later testified that they were present during all of the time when such an absurd 
and crazy boast could possibly have been made, and took oaths that Mr. Wiehe 
made no such remark. Among those who denied this self-evident falsehood 
was Charles McGowan, a young Canadian of good breeding and connections, 
son of John McGowan, of Elora, Ontario, ex-member of the Dominion Parlia¬ 
ment. 

The Dillingham Committee was induced to employ the Burns Detective 
Agency to shadow young McGowan. For three months a detective, known as 
A. C. Bailey, became the close associate of Charles McGowan. At the end of 
that period the counsel of the Committee closely examined the reports submitted 
from time to time by Bailey, was compelled to admit that the alleged evidence 
was not worth considering, and the Committee dismissed the Burns agency from 
its employ. What then happened ? 

Detective Bailey, and doubtless other detectives, were then employed by 
Clarence S. Funk, General Manager of the International Harvester Company, 
and author of the original and now disproved charges against Edward Hines. 
It has not yet developed whether Funk was acting for himself or for his com¬ 
pany. The sworn testimony discloses the fact that, about the middle of January, 
James Keeley, Editor of the Chicago Tribune, had a conference with William 
J. Burns, and gave the latter instructions as to what was wanted of him. The 
combination thus became Funk, Keeley and Burns. 

CHROKOLOGY OF THE COLLAPSE OF THE COKSPIRACY. 

Charles McGowan gave his testimony before the Dillingham Committee in 
Washington on July 18, 1911. The Committee, as has been stated, was per¬ 
suaded to employ the Burns Detective Agency to trail and ^‘rope’’ Mr. 
McGowan. Detective Bailey entered on this work on July 20. Bailey 
met McGowan in Regina, Saskatchewan, on August 1, and was with him 
most of the time until October 26, at which time the Dillingham Committee 
dispensed with the services of the Bums agency for the reason that nothing in¬ 
criminating had been proved against Mr. McGowan. 

Promptly thereafter, Bailey and R. J. Burns—son of W. J. Burns—called on 
Clarence S. Funk and Edgar A. Bancroft, leading officials of the International 
Harvester Company, and Bailey was reemployed by them to report on McGowan. 
Bailey was taken off the case shortly afterwards, but it may be presumed that 
Funk and Bancroft employed other detectives to keep up the quest. McGowan 
was in Chicago with Bailey at the time when the Committee decided to spend 
no more money on Burns and his men. According to the testimony later given 
by Bailey, McGowan was there for the purpose of demanding $5,000 from ^The 
Hines bunch’’ as the reward for his alleged perjury. It is singular that Bailey— 
then in the employ of Funk—did not deem it necessary to arrest McGowan red- 




4 


THE PLOT THAT FAILED. 


handed after Mr. C. F. Wiehe was alleged to have paid McGowan $1,500 in 
cash. 

The facts are, of course, that Bailey, Funk, Keeley, of the Chicago Tribune, 
and all concerned, knew that McGowan was in Chicago on a perfectly legitimate 
mission, and that he w^as waiting for the return of Mr. Wiehe to adjust a 
claim for losses to which McGowan honestly was entitled. 

On December 21, Bailey again took the McGowan trail, this time in the em¬ 
ploy of James Keeley, of the Chicago Tribune. Bailey opened a correspondence 
with McGowan, proceeded by slow stages to Toronto, commissioned to execute 
a plot. Bailey took with him to Toronto, Kerr, described by W. J. Burns as 
^The prominent business man of Detroit,’’ also Sheridan, ^The boy stenographer,” 
and his famous dictagraph. He also had the assistance of a swarm of other de¬ 
tectives, a considerable contingent of the combined Funk-Tribune staff of sleuths. 
Two of these were sent to Elora, the others hung about Toronto. 

On the night of January 6, 1912, Charles McGowan was introduced to Kerr. 
Only an abject idiot would confide anything to Kerr, yet the public is asked to 
believe that the intelligent and well-bred Charles McGowan went to a room with 
Bailey and Kerr, and then and there proclaimed himself a perjurer in the 
presence of a hang-dog stranger, also that a dictagraph conveyed McGowan’s 
insane confessions to the ears of ^^stenographer” Sheridan. Mr. McGowan was 
not intoxicated. Bailey admitted under oath that he had never seen Charles 
McGowan under the infiuence of liquor. 

The unsuspecting McGowan parted with his ^Triends” and returned to Elora 
on January 8. On the following day. Senator Lorimer took the stand at Wash¬ 
ington. It was generally understood that the investigation would close with 
the taking of his testimony. Funlv, Keeley and Burns must have known of the 
result of the ^Trapping” of McGowan on January 7. They could have laid it 
before the Committee on the following day, and would have done so had their 
motives been honest or honorable. Did they do this? Not at all. Wh;y ? Be¬ 
cause they knew that they had no evidence which the Committee or the public 
would accept. These moral conspirators in a moral plot to “drive Senator 
Lorimer out of politics” were well aware that William J. Burns was truthlui 
when he publicly asserted: “Private detectives, as a class, are the greatest lot 
of blackmailing thieves that ever went unwhipped of justice.” Funk, Keeley 
and Burns also well know that most private detectives are as adept at perjury 
as at blackmail, and they had no original intention of putting Bailey, Kerr and 
Sheridan on the stand. 

WAITING FOR THE PSYCHOLOGICAL MOMENT. 

Not until the psychological moment were the personal ser\Jces of William J. 
Bums, “the great detective,” called on. Naught save epoch-making crises can 


THE PLOT THAT FAILED. • 5 

invoke liis actual presence and command his monumental genius! On Sunday, 
January 14—more than a week after Charles McGowan is alleged to have talked 
into the dictagraph—Mr. Burns honored Toronto with his presence. He called 
the elder McGowan on the telephone, tactfully informed him that his son had 
committed perjury, ordered both of the McGowans to come in&tantly to Toronto, 
make abject confession, and depend on the mighty Burns to place all of the blame 
on the wicked Edward Hines, who was to be accused of bribing Charles Mc¬ 
Gowan to affirm the testimony that had been sworn to by four other honest and 
reputable gentlemen. Mr. John McGowan promptly told Burns that he was a 
liar, and did not come to Toronto, where the dictagraph was awaiting him. 

Those who care to examine the official record spread on these pages can form 
their owm conclusions concerning what would have been alleged against John 
i\[cGowan and his son, Charles, had they come to Toronto and submitted to the 
^‘third degree” by William J. Burns, as it might have been transmitted by the 
dictagraph to the accommodating ears of Sheridan, Burns’ private secretary. 
The reader can see for himself, by examining these pages, how much relation 
sound waves translated by Sheridan over a Burns dictagraph bear to what 
actually is spoken by three participants in a conversation. 

Burns knew, of course, that Charles McGowan—if guilty of perjury—would 
not leave the protection of Canada, his native home, and throw himself on the 
mercy of Funk, Keeley and Burns. Had the two McGowans walked into the 
trap, we may assume that the dictagraph would have done the rest, even though 
the intended victims had not uttered an incriminating w^ord. 

Having worked the dictagraph on the McGowans, it would then have been an 
easy matter to ffighten Charles McGowan to go into hiding—assuming, as 
Burns probably did, that the young man stood in proper fear of the Funk- 
Tribune-Burns syndicate. With Charles McGowan in flight, and with the 
two alleged dictagraph records ready for copying in Sheridan’s note book, the 
moment would have been propitious to move on Washington and offer the 
damning evidence the moment Senator Lorimer concluded his testimony. It 
would then be impossible to contradict it before the close of the hearing. 

On Monday, January 15, after becoming convinced that neither of the Mc¬ 
Gowans could be lured to Toronto, Burns left for Baltimore. In his testimony 
he is uncertain wdiether he held a conference with Editor Keeley in Baltimore, 
on Monday or Tuesday. Lorimer w^as still on the wdtness stand on Tuesdaj, 
but it was announced that a few more hours would complete his testimony. On 
Wednesday, January 17, no session was held on account of wffiat was considered 
a slight indisposition on the part of Judge Hanecy. On the following day, J. J. 
Healy and John H. Marble, official counsel for the Committee, submitted to 
Chairman Dillingham and others of the Committee a confidential statement of 
what Burns promised to prove. This was on Thursday. It was deemed a cer¬ 
tainty that the week would see the end of the protracted investigation. The con- 


6 


THE PLOT THAT FAILED. 


spirators planned that Bums should tell his tale, submit his alleged proof, chal¬ 
lenge the defense to produce McGowan, and thus crown with success the moral 
effort to ^^drive Senator Lorimer out of politics.’’ 

■ ‘^A BREACH OF COHFIDEHCE.” 

Three other things happened on that day which proved most disconcerting 
to the Funk-Tribune-Burns syndicate. Chairman Dillingham deemed it his duty 
to notify Edward Hines that Burns claimed to possess evidence which would 
convict him of bribery and Charles McGowan of perjury. This notifi¬ 
cation reached Mr. Hines while he was on a business trip to Buffalo. 
After a sensational trip he reached the little town of Elora long 
after midnight, roused the McGowans, listened to Charles’ frank ac¬ 
count of what had happened, and secured the promise of father 
and son to proceed to Washington and face the men who had decreed their dis¬ 
grace as part of the price of purifying Illinois politics. The third distracting 
happening of that day was the announcement that the illness of Judge Hanecy 
was so serious that it was likely the sessions of the Committee would be post¬ 
poned for several days. The fuse to the mine had been lighted prematurely! 
Another blow fell on Saturday when the Associated Press sent out a fairly ac¬ 
curate account of the alleged trapping of McGowan. 

In an editorial statement, published on Sunday, January 21, the Chicago 
Tribune asserted that there had been ‘‘a deliberate breach of faith on the part 
of some one in Washington.” That great newspaper, founded by Joseph Medill, 
fell so far from its high estate that it whined because warning had been given 
to Edward Hines and Charles McGowan that a plot was on foot to assassinate 
their characters. 

The McGowans headed for Washington as fast as steam could carry them. 
The Funk-Tribune-Burns syndicate had the choice of withdrawing their charges 
or of attempting to deceive the Committee with what ^‘evidence” they dared 
produce. They elected to choose the latter alternative. They now realize their 
monumental blunder. Eidward Hines called the Burns bluff—and these pages 
display the pitiful hand laid down by ^The great detective.” 

Burns took the stand on January 31, and disgusted the Committee and the 
large audience with his insolence and egotism. He shifted most of the responsi¬ 
bility on his men. His account of his effort to reform Charles McGowan, 
through attempts to force him to confess to a crime not committed, caused 
mingled laughter and contempt. Burns was forced to admit that ex-convicts, 
yeggmen and other crooks are on his pay rolls. He admitted that Funk and 
Keeley are his clients. After a merciless grilling by Judge Hanecy he left 
Washington, nor could the distressing plight of his confederates induce him to 
return to the capital until the hearings were over. 


THE PLOT THAT FAILED. 


•7 

A. 0. Bailey then took the stand. His testimony was to the effect that Charles 
McGowan constantly burdened him with confessions of perjury. Bailey was a 
picturesque but careless liar. He had been too lazy to study the testimony and 
therefore ascribed to McGowan meaningless charges and contradictory false¬ 
hoods. Bailey admitted that during the three months he had been unable to 
secure a witness to McGowan’s alleged incessant confessions of perjury. All 
that Bailey had to offer was his note book and his imagination. The slinking 
Kerr then took the stand. This ‘‘prominent business man of Detroit” was a 
repulsive joke. The defense had several witnesses on hand who were eager to 
reveal Kerr’s record, but after seeing and hearing that person, the august Com¬ 
mittee decided that it was not necessary to prove the obvious. 

SHERIDAN AND HIS DICTAGRAPH. 

Intense interest was displayed when James E. Sheridan took the stand. This 
nineteen-year-old boy stated that he was Bums’ private secretary, and that he 
had been sent to Toronto to use a dictagraph on McGowan. The public had 
been led to believe that the “dictagraph” was an automatic instrument which 
records all sounds from an adjacent room. It was presumed to be so perfect 
that it would repeat the exact accent of any human voice. It was assumed that 
the great Burns had thus invented and applied a device which would be the 
terror of criminals; a wonderful mechanism from whose testimony there could 
be no appeal. 

It was now learned that it was a crude affair with a receiver of sounds at one 
end and a transmitter at the other, and that the operator was compelled to take 
stenographic notes of what he was able to hear, also that the transmitter was 
attached so clumsily to one ear that he was compelled to use one hand to hold it 
properly in place. Sheridan admitted that he was thus compelled to handle his 
note book, turn its pages, hold them in place with a Bible and take stenographic 
notes, all this with one hand. There was nothing automatic about it. It was 
merely a clumsy telephone. Its value as a producer of testimony depended on 
the skill and honesty of Sheridan—private secretary to a private detective. 

The expert official stenographers of the Senate and the House of Representa¬ 
tives who were present when Sheridan made this explanation looked at him and 
at one another in amazement. The word passed around: “He is either a marvel 
or a liar!” Handicapped, as described, Sheridan w^as alleged to have taken the 
vital portions of the dialogue of three men in another room, to have recognized 
their voices, and to have transcribed an accurate version of their conversation. 

Sheridan produced his note book and began to read from it. Milton W. 
Blumenberg, official reporter for a quarter of a century of the Senate of the 
United States, took a position back of the witness and closely scanned the char¬ 
acters from which Sheridan read. One look convinced Blumenberg that they 



8 


THE PLOT THAT FAILED. 


were not genuine. To his trained eye they conveyed the sure indications of 
fraud, but Blumenberg said nothing at that time. This is what Sheridan read 
from his alleged notes, purporting to be a record of what was said in an adjoin¬ 
ing room by A. O. Bailey, Harry E. Kerr and Charles McGowan: 

WHAT SHERIDAK CLAIMS HE HEARD IK TOROKTO. 

Mr. Bailey. ^^Did they use you pretty well before you got through, Charlie ?” 

Charles McGowan. made them come across. They had to. They had to 
come across.” 

Mr. Kerr. ^^These fellows, especially Hines, are a bad lot. He is so crooked 
he can’t lay in bed straight.” 

Charles McGowan. ^Wes; he is crooked. I found that out.” 

Mr. Kerr. ^Gf I had any dealings with him, I would want what was coming 
to me first.” 

Charles McGowan. ^‘You know what I did—I went down there and perjured 
myself as deep as I could. After they got what they wanted-” 

Mr. Kerr. ^‘Down at Washington, eh?” 

Mr. Kerr. ‘^They don’t care anything about you ?” 

Charles McGowan. ^^Ko; Christ, no.” 

Charles McGowan. ^G tell you, Wiehe came down. Listen: The fellow who 
was standing close to you—I didn’t see you after that.” 

Mr. Bailey. ^G saw you were with one of the fellows, and walked in, and 
when I came out you were gone.” 

Charles McGowan. ^GVhen I got off the stand, they kepi me for two w^eeks 
and then put-me on again, and let me go on the promise that I would go back. I 
came to Chicago-” 

Mr. Kerr. ‘Trohably they were through with you, and thought if you stayed 
around Chicago much longer you would cause some trouble.” 

Mr. Bailey. ^^The other side would cause some trouble.” 

Charles McGowan. ^Wou are damn right!” 

Charles McGowan. ^Gesus Christ; If I had not been in my own room, 
Wiehe would have shot me. I said: ‘You s— of a b—, do you think I am going 
to Washington and perjure myself for the first time in my life for nothing V He 
said: ‘We will pay you anything that’s fair.’ I said: ‘\Wiat do you think is 
fair ?’ He said: ‘I don’t mind paying two or three hundred dollars.’ I said : 
‘That’s no good.’ Why, I would just as soon rapped him in the face. I wanted 
yes or no. I said: ‘I am not making any threats, but I want yes or no.’ ” 

Mr. Bailey. “He couldn’t give you too much for a thing like that.” 

Mr. Bailey. “If you had told them they would have to come through first, 
there would have been nothing to it, then. That’s what you should have 
done-” 









THE PLOT THAT FAILED. 


0 


Mr. Bailey. ^‘Did Mr. Wiehe finally settle with you, Charlie ?’’ 

Charles McGowan. ‘^Oh, yes. He finally settled.” 

Mr. Bailey. ^Gs he one of the firm ?” 

Chaides McGowan. ‘^Ho ; he is a brother-in-law of Hines. He is a million¬ 
aire, you know.” 

Mr. Iverr. ^A\ho is this fellow? He’s Irishj isn’t he?” 

Charles McGowan. ^^Yes.” 

Mr. Bailey. ‘Tie is so God damned mean.” 

Charles McGowan. “He wanted me. to realize that—that he had to inin it.” 

Charles McGowan. “I made the first offer and Wiehe refused it—then he 
agreed to it—there was no sense taking it; Jesus Christ! I guess he thought 
that he was a friend of mine.” 

Kerr. “How much did you get ?” 

Charles McGowan. “$1,500.” 

Bailey. (Sparring around.) “What does $5,000 mean to them?” 

Bailey. “They were scared to death.” 

Charles McGowan. “They tried to scare me. They tried to make the im¬ 
pression that I would be in bad if I stuck.” 

Sheridan. (Explaining to Committee.) Here the tube disconnected, as I 
stated. Then I heard : “In the smoking compartment * * * you don’t know 
very damn much about it.” 

Bailey. “You were never acquainted with Burgess, were you ?”• 

Charles McGowan. “Oh, yes.” 

Kerr. “Was he a witness in this ?” 

Charles McGowan. “Yes; he was a witness-” 

Kerr. “Was the fellow who went after Hines, eh?” 

Bailey. “He didn’t go after Hines, did he? He was against Hines all the 
way through.” 

Bailey. “Jesus Christ! It was a wonder they didn’t get him.” 

Charles McGowan. “Yes. Well, one man would say one thing and then 
another man would go down and call him an absolute liar. Wiehe said: ‘Well, 
by God, if I have made a statement like that-’ ” 

V 

THE EXPLOSIOK. 

The cross examination of Sheridan was in progress when Senator Lea asked: 
“Where are the notes ?” Blumenberg replied: “I sent them to the office. I 
wanted the concurrence of my associates. It looks to me as if these notes are 
manufactured.” “What do you mean ?” asked Senator Lea. “I think they were 
written afterwards,” declared Blumenberg, “written from some other communi¬ 
cation; copied; because THEY AKE A PERFECT FAKE; THEY ARE 
AN ABSOLUTE FAKE! That is what I mean !” 






10 


THE PLOT THAT FAILED. 


This dramatic accusation was the first open avowal charging fraud and con¬ 
spiracy. It was a frank and manly protest against a miserable plot, and it served 
notice on the plotters that their methods had been detected. 

On the following Monday, February 5, Mr. Bliimenberg was called to the 
witness stand. He gave in exhaustive detail the professional reasons which 
proved that Sheridan’s notes were spurious. Here is a skeleton of some of the 
sworn testimony of the leading stenographic expert in the United States, the 
official reporter of seven great national conventions; at one time the official re¬ 
porter of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the trusted stenographer 
generally called on to record the executive sessions of the United States Senate. 
Mr. Blumenberg thus took oath: 

have never seen a bolder attempt to pull off anything in my life than that 
exhibited by these notes * * * The notes show a perfect regularity * * * 
There are no corrections * * * pf you will examine the notes of a reporter 
who is accustomed to do that sort of work you will find that he will strike out 
certain characters. These stenographic notes are perfectly regular and uniform 
* * * Ho one sitting at the end of a telephone—which is practically what 

this device is—attempting to write shorthand and take down this conversation 
could do so and turn it out as it appears in these notes * * * These characters 
show no indication of speed. This looks like the work of an amateur * * * 

They were never taken at an actual conversation * * * The man who wrote 
them did so at his leisure. * * *” 

In the course of a long examination, Mr. Blumenberg made a proposition 
which dazed the prosecution. He said, pointing to a slip of paper: ‘^Here is a 
list containing the names of eleven stenographers, and if any one of these men 
will go on the stand and say that these notes in question are actual notes, I shall 
have nothing more to say. I will read this list: 

^^Theodore F. Shuey, Ofilcial Exporter, United States Senate. 

^^Edward F. Murphy, Official Eeporter, United States Senate. 

^Tred Irland, Official Eeporter, House of Eepresentatives. 

^^Allister Cochrane, Ofiicial Eeporter, House of Eepresentatives. 

^Alendum Blumenberg, my brother, Official Committee Stenographer of the 
House of Eepresentatives. 

^Tercy E. Endlong, professional reporter here in Washington, who has been 
assisting me in this case. 

^^Griffith L. Johnson, professional reporter in AVashington. 

‘HI. H. Pechin, professional reporter in Washington. 

“AVilliam Herbert Smith, professional reporter in Washington. 

“John W. Hulse, who has been selected to succeed me here. 

“Frank E. Hanna, who is now taking notes of these proceedings.” 

Mr. Blumenberg could safely have included in that list every first-class 
stenogTapher in the United States. Scores of AVashington expert short-hand 


THE PLOT THAT FAILED. 


11 


reporters have examined Sheridan’s notes. Without exception these capable and 
disinterested men and women unhesitatingly declared them spurious. Sheridan 
—and the Chicago Tribune—stood alone in maintaining that they were genuine. 

It is doubtful if a member of the Dillingham Committee seriously questioned 
Mr. Blumenberg’s word, but to be fair to the dazed prosecution they called two 
other great experts to the witness stand. The scholarly Allister Cochrane, for 
years the Official Reporter of the House of Representatives, swore positively 
that Sheridan’s notes were manufactured. Mr. H. H. Pechin, an acknowledged 
authority on the art of stenography, gave unhesitating testimony to the same 
effect. It was a certainty that all of the great experts listed by Mr. Blumenberg 
would confirm the testimony of those who had preceded them. It was therefore 
a waste of time to listen to their testimony. It only remained to give Sheridan 
a test. 

It was the contention of Mr. Blumenberg and all other experts that the notes 
alleged to have been taken by Sheridan in Toronto showed no indications of 
speed, also that he could not imitate them and report a genuine conversation. It 
was not disputed that he could catch and record an occasional phrase. A school 
boy could do that in long-hand. 

The exact nature of the test demanded of Sheridan was clearly stated by 
Chairman Dillingham in these words: 

^“'Mr. Sheridan was placed in another room, as nearly as could be determined 
under conditions like those under which he testified he used the dictagraph at 
Toronto. The first test was a general conversation between Messrs. Bailey and 
Kerr and Mr. Pierce, the Secretary of the Committee. Mr. Sheridan was alone 
in the room where he was taking his notes. 

^Hn the second test Messrs. Bailey, Kerr and Ward were engaged in the con¬ 
versation. At that time Mr. Pierce was in the room where Mr. Sheridan was at 
work to observe whether he used the earpiece with the strap or whether he kept 
his hand over it, as appeared in the testimony given by him in this case to have 
been done on the occasion at Toronto. 

“Instructions were given to Mr. Sheridan to select from the conversations 
let ween the 'parties already 'named those portions that related to this case. lie 
was not required to take the balance of the conversation; in fact, he was directed 
not to do so. 

^The members of the Committee who are now present at the table were 
present at the test. The official stenographers of the Committee, Mr. Hnlse and 
Mr. Budlong, were present in the room where the conversation took place, and 
took down the entire conversation.” 

For the convenience of the reader I insert a sheet displaying in parallel 
columns what actually was said by three men, and what Sheridan managed 
to record. The student of this incident has only to glance at that page to be 
convinced that the private secretary to William J. Bums utterly failed in both 




12 


THE PLOT THAT FAILED. 


tests. This mere boy, unskilled in stenography, had essayed the impossible and 
with the inevitable result. When Sheridan took the witness stand after the 
test and read his incoherent snatches of the actual conversations, a feeling of 
pity and of sympathy went up even from those who despised the plot and the 
plotters then revealed. 

Before asking the reader to study the outcome of that test, it may be well 
for him to read what the Chicago Tribune saw fit to print on the following 
day. It is to be hoped that journalistic mendacity sounded its lowest depths 
in the Chicago Tribune dispatch of February 10, 1912, in which a headline 
proclaimed: OPEEATOE, BY EIGID TEST, PEOVES VALUE 

OF DICTAGEAPH EECOEDS.’^ In the body of the dispatch were such 
captions as: ‘^Yotes of Sheridan Perfect,” ^^Amazed at Sheridan’s Skill,” and 
^“■Other Stenographers Fail.” 

A sample falsehood in this amazing and insolent tissue of Tribune fabrica¬ 
tions is the assertion: ^Hn every instance Sheridan’s notes show he identified 
the voices of Bailey and Kerr, as well as those of strangers.” 

Those who wish to comprehend the spirit which has animated the Chicago 
Tribune in its protracted campaign of abuse and slander against Senator 
Lorimer and his friends, can now weigh its claim of victory for Sheridan in 
tlie scales with this official record as certified by the Government of the United 
States. 

The matter printed in italics on the enclosed folder pertains to the Lorimer 
case, and it was the task of Sheridan to take every word of these portions. Study 
it and judge how he failed. 

ANALYSIS OF A PITIFUL FAILUEE. 

t 

Sheridan was thoroughly familiar with the voices of Bailey and Kerr, his 
detective associates. For ten days or more he had been practicing day and night 
in a desperate attempt to make the best possible showing. Blumenberg and other 
experts had declared that Sheridan’s Toronto notes were copied; that they were 
taken leisurely, and that no man living could write such regular and perfect 
characters with speed enough to record even the most deliberate conversation. 

Sheridan was aware, or was advised, that no matter what the result, he must 
duplicate as closely as possible the type of notes alleged to have been taken when 
Charles McGowan was in an adjoining room in a Toronto hotel. It was not 
disputed that Sheridan could form such amateurish notes in Washington, but 

o / 

it was asserted that he could develop no speed with such carefully drawn 
characters. 

Sheridan had the alternative either of abandoning all attempts to follow the 
conversation, or of recording it in genuine, rapidly written characters which 
would bear no resemblance to those copied in Toronto. He chose the former 
expedient. His confederates, Bailey and Kerr, were shrewd enough to talk 


THE PLOT THAT FAILED. 


13 


very slowly and distinctly, but it was Sheridan^s particular task to distingnisL 
and record everything said by the ^^strange voice.” A more crushing failure 
would have been impossible. 

There is not a newspaper reporter in the United States, able to hold his job 
for a week, who can not take five times as much from a ^^strange voice” in 
long-hand and with his cuffs for a note book. 

In the first test, Mr. Pierce, Clerk of the Senate Committee on Privileges and 
Elections, was the ^‘strange voice,” and took part in the conversation thirty- 
seven times on matters connected with the Lorimer case. On six of these occa¬ 
sions Sheridan recognized his voice and attempted to record what he said. Pierce 
spoke 482 words; Sheridan recorded 32, and ON NO OCCASION DID 
SHERIDAN CONVEY THE MEANING PLAINLY .EXPRESSED 
BY MR. PIERCE. This is what the Chicago Tribune characterizes as a per- 
f'/Tmance by which the expert stenographers present were ^‘amazed at Sheridan’s 
skill.” 

A TYPICAL SHERIDAN BLUNDER. 

The reader must bear in mind that young Sheridan was offered as a witness 
by William J. Burns. Through a dictagraph, Sheridan claimed to have heard 
and accurately recorded a conversation which was alleged to convict Charles 
^McGowan of perjury, Edward Hines of bribery, and which testimony was 
offered before an august committee of the United States Senate for the purpose 
of unseating Senator William Lorimer, elected by the Legislature of Illinois 
to the highest honor in the gift of that great State. What was the result of this 
fair test to determine if Sheridan took the alleged notes ? 

This is what we find: The nearest that Sheridan came in the first test to re¬ 
cording anything actually said by Mr. Pierce is his version,of a sentence thus 
reported by the official stenographer: “Llave you been interested in the case 
before?” In place of this, Sheridan records Mr. Pierce as asking: ^Udave you 
been in the case before?” The Chicago Tribune considers this a marvel of 
accuracy—and it is—from the Chicago Tribune viewpoint. 

Suppose that Mr. James Keeley, officiating editor of the Chicago Tribune, 
were in a room conversing with a number of friends, and that Sheridan was in 
an adjoining room ^^roping” Keeley with the Burns type of dictagraph. Sup¬ 
pose that Keeley then remarked to William J. Burns and Clarence S. Funk: 
'Tor years I have been interested in jails in various States,” which would be a 
natural statement for a newspaper editor to make. Now suppose that Sheridan 
swore later to the accuracy of notes which recorded Keeley as declaring: -^Tor 
years I have been in jails in various States.” Would that be a substantially 
accurate version of the meaning which Mr. Keeley attempted at that time to 
convey? The Tribune says so. 

Sheridan was not able to record from Pierce even the four word sentence and 



14 


THE PLOT THAT FAILED. 


question: closely at all?” Out of the thirty-seven times when Pierce 

took part in the conversation, Sheridan missed him absolutely thirty-one times. 
Read all that Sheridan gathered from the talk of these three men, then determine 
for yourself if it makes sense or has coherency. He was able to transcribe only 
a fraction of the artificially slow remarks of Bailey and Kerr. 

Yet this was the same Sheridan who was in an adjoining room in a Toronto 
hotel when he alleges that the angry Charles McGowan delivered this tirade, 
which must have been spoken rapidly and excitedly, if at all: 

STRAKGE VOICE. -! If I had not been in my own room, Wiehe 

would have shot me. I said: ‘You — of a —, do you think I am going to 
Washington and perjure myself for the first time in my life for nothing?’ He 
said: ‘We will pay you anything that’s fair.’ I said: ‘What do you think is 
fair ?’ He said: ‘I don’t mind paying two or three hundred dollars.’ I said: 
‘That’s no good.’ Why, I would just as soon rapped him in the face. I wanted 
yes or no. I said: ‘I am not making any threats, hut I want yes or no.’ ” 

Here are 106 consecutive words reported by Sheridan, which, if true, frame 
a damning indictment against Charles ^McGowan and C. F. Wiehe, both of whom 
have never been accused of wrong save by the tools of conspirators. What hap¬ 
pened in Washington when Sheridan was put to a test? The longest sentence 
spoken by Mr. Pierce contained only forty-two words, and “Lorimer” was the 
fourth word uttered, thus giving Sheridan full warning. Here is one of the 
sentences which Sheridan should have taken in its entirety: 

MR. PIERCE. “In following this Lorimer case, you say the papers all 
over the country have been more or less filled with the account of the hearings. 
You say, Bailey, that you never remember reading of it before you were em¬ 
ployed by your agency ?” 

Sheridan was able to reduce to his amateurish notes symbols which stood for 
this: “Lorimer case. The papers all over the country,” and not one word more. 
This was another triumph for the Chicago Tribune. Its employee collected eight 
words out of forty-two, but did not have time to make sense with them. Sheridan 
apparently had plenty of time in Toronto. 

ANALYSIS OF SECOND SHERIDAN TEST. 

In the second test Mr. Ward, private secretary to Senator Lorimer, officiated 
as the “strange voice.” Mr. Ward took part in the conversation thirty-three 
times on topics pertaining to the Lorimer case. Sheridan made twelve attempts 
to transcribe what Ward said. He succeeded in reporting two short sentences 
correctly, and in all of the long period in which he was under test these are the 
sole instances of accuracy. These are more than offset by the vital mistakes of 
ascribing to Ward two sentences uttered by Bailey. These glaring blunders 



THE PLOT THAT FAILED. 


15 


would have destroyed the value of Sheridan’s test even had he been able to take 
every word spoken, in place of the tiny percentage actually displayed. 

The Chicago Tribune declares: ^^In every instance Sheridan’s notes show he 
identified the voices of Bailey and Kerr, as well as those of strangers.” 

It may be a fruitless task to prove that paper a deliberate falsifier of facts, 
but here is the record: 

Bailey said, in his normal tone of voice: think, if I remember rightly, 

they were in session there at that time.” 

Sheridan ascribed this remark to the ^^strange voice.” A moment later Bailey 
said: ^^Yes, in October.” Again Sheridan quoted this as coming from the 
^^strange voicg.” 

This is a sample of the thousands of false statements on which the Chicago 
Tribune has based its crusade to ^^purify Illinois politics.” 

We find in the record that Ward asks as a question: ^^The 18th of October?” 
Sheridan records him as thus answering a question or making a statement. On 
another occasion Bailey said: ^AVell, I left Detroit for Toronto.” Sheridan 
quotes Bailey as asserting: went to Detroit.” Possibly even the Tribune 

will admit that this was not strictly acciirate. 

The real test of the value of Sheridan’s notes consists in a consecutive reading 
of them. His Toronto notes told the plain story of a confession of bribery and 
perjury. There were slight breaks, but the story was there. What do his Wash¬ 
ington notes reveal ? Kothing—nothing save that the predictions of Blumen- 
berg and other qualified experts were verified. 

SOME STABTLIKG FACTS. 

Burns detectives in the employ of Clarence S. Funk, general manager of the 
International Harvester Company, and Janies Keeley, nominal editor of the 
Chicago Tribune, were in Chicago shadowing Charles McGowan in the latter 
part of October, 1911. One of them, A. C. Bailey, enjoyed the complete confi¬ 
dence of McGowan, and knew that the latter was to make a settlement with 
C. F. Wiehe for losses sustained by reason of his retention as a witness in the 
Lorimer case. Bailey, Funk and Keeley knew that this settlement was made. 
Had they deemed it an illegitimate settlement they could and should have 
ordered the arrest of McGowan, and thus have caught him in actual possession 
of bribery money. 

Knowing that a settlement had been made—and it was an honest settlement 
—they took no such step. McGowan was permitted to return to his home in 
Flora. On January C, 1912, he was lured by Bailey to a hotel in Flora, for 
the alleged purpose of operating a dictagraph on him. 

William J. Burns certainly knew that the word of James E. Sheridan, his 
private secretary, would not be accepted as the recorder of what came through 


16 


THE PLOT THAT FAILED. 


the wire of the dictagraph. If Burns and Funk and Keeley actually believed 
McGowan guilty; if they had reason to believe that he would make a confession 
in the room of that Toronto hotel—what would have been the plain course open 
to them ? ]^ot the employment of a boy detective, unskilled in stenography, but 
the services of a trained court reporter from Toronto. 

That such would have been the course pursued by fair and honest investigators 
is so clear that it need not be discussed. .Such a stenographer could have taken 
a transcript of all said in the adjoining room. The sworn word of such a 
stenographer would have been accepted in any court of law, and would have been 
conclusive before the Dillingham Committee. The denials of McGowan would 
have been unheeded. All this is obvious. 

Instead of adopting this rational and honest policy, what was done ? The dis¬ 
credited Bailey and the slinking Kerr were placed in the room with McGowan, 
and the ^^boy stenographer’’ located in an adjoining apartment. If Sheridan 
then really took any notes, experts declare that they were not exhibited to the 
Committee. A week later and we find William J. Burns in Toronto attempting 
to frighten the McGowans over a telephone. Burns then leaves Toronto in 
doubt whether or not Charles McGowan will fiy for safety. A few days later 
and a hint of the plot is revealed to Edward Hines, who promptly calls the 
Burns bluff. The exposure of Sheridan followed inevitably when stenographic 
experts glanced at his notes. 

Did Bailey, Kerr and Sheridan attempt this fraud on their own initiative ? 
Did they ass.ume this tremendous responsibility without authority from some one 
^Ligher up ?” If so, who were the individuals who decreed that the reputation 
of Charles McGowan should be blasted and his career ruined? What object did 
these conspirators have in mind ? 

For additional information and future articles on 

this subject, address 

FREDERICK UPHAM ADAMS 

HASTINGS-ON-HUDSON, N. Y. 


NOTE: The reader is referred to Page 4 of the pamphlet, “THE PLOT THAT FAILlRti’ the history/ oi the events which led to the exposure revealed on this sheet 


FIRST TEST 


DRAMATIC COLLAPSE OF A PLOT WHICH 
OISGRACES AMERICAN JOURNALISM 


Official Records Which Show Conclusively that the Chicago 
Tribune Employed Burns Detectives,Who Manufac¬ 
tured Evidence Intended to Convict an Hon¬ 
est Man of the Crime of Perjury 


STARTLING EXPOSURE OF A DELIBERATE CON¬ 
SPIRACY AGAINST SENATOR WILLIAM LORIMER 


II (■re is the absolute proof that a conspiracy has been in progress for the un¬ 
seating of Senator William Lorimer, of Illinois. On the night of Januai’y 6, 
of this year, Burns detectives in the employ of the Ohicago Tribune, lured 
Charles .McGowan, of Elora, Ontario, into a room in the King Edward Hotel, of 
Toronto. Two of these detectives, Bailey and KeiT, later testified in Washing¬ 
ton before the Dillingham Committee that .McGowan made admissions of per¬ 
jury then and there, and that these confessions were conveyed by a dictagraph 
to an adjoining room, in which was located Janies E. Sheridan, private secretary 
to William J. Burns, the detective. Sheridan claims that he took accurate notes 
of the incriminating portions of the conversation, and gave oath that these notes 
were genuine. 

Milton AV. Blunienberg, for a (juarti'r of a century the oflicial reixirter of the 
Senate of the United States, and admittedly the leading stenographic expert in 
the country, swore that these notes were manufactureel; in other words, that they 
were slowly copied by Sheridan. Allister Cochrane, official reporter of the 
House of Representatives, took oath to the same effect, as also did H. 11. Pechin, 
a professional rorvu-ter of national reputation. Eine other stenographic experts 
in the employ of the Senate and the House were ready to testify to the sanm 
effect. 

The Dillingham Committee decided to put Sheridan to a test, under condi¬ 
tions similar to those described by Sheridan in his testimony. The Committee 
gave him every opportunity, and selected Bailey and Kerr as two of the parti¬ 
cipants in the conversations. Sheridan was familiar with the voices of tliese 
two detective associates. In the first te'st IMr. Pierce, private secretary to Senator 
Dillingham, was the “strange voice,” and in the second test, Air. Ward, jirivati' 
sc’cretary to S;nator Lorimer, was the “strange voice.” Bailey and Kerr were 
shrewd enoiigli to talk very slowly and distinctly. Ifferce and Ward talked in the 
ordinary conversational niamu r, and Sheridan was instructed to record in his 
not(^s all that tliey said cone( ruing the Lorimer case. 

Here is the result of that test—the inevitahle and (jompletc' failure ju'edicted 
by Bliimenla rg and all of the (^\|)ert stenogra]>hers in Washington who studied 
Sheridan’s alleged notes claimed to have l)een taken in Toronto. I’his sensational 
collapse is proof jxisitive that the.se detectives attempted to manufacture evidence 
incriminating Charles AIcGowan and Pldward Hines, for the purjtose of unseat¬ 
ing Senator Lorimer. 

In the first test, Mr. Pierce—the “strange voice”—spoke 4S2 words on sub¬ 
jects pertaining to the Dudmer matter. These are shown on this jiage in italics, 
and Sheridan was presumed to he abh- to record all of these. ()ut of the 482 
words uttered on the lyorimer case hy Air. Pierce, Sheridan manage d to record 
•‘32, but did not frame a sentence or a res])onse which conveyed the real meaning 
official stenographers who were in the room with the Senatorial 
(kmrn^^^mid the three talkers. Sheridan’s failure was absolute, pitifid. 

In the second test, Air. AVard—“the strange voice”-—spoke 770 words pertain¬ 
ing to the Lorimer case. Sheridan recorded 142 of these, Init only .It! words 
conveyed sense which corresponded in any way with the rc al meaning. 
Twice he mistook Bailey for the “strange voice,” nineteen times he faihd to get 
a word spoken by Air. AA’’ard, four attempts were meaningless, three were totally 
WTong, and on only six occasions for a total of 50 words did Sheridan ajeproxi- 
mate accuracy. 

In both tests Sheridan manage'd to convey the approximate meaning with .Mi 
words out of 1,252, or one word out of twentij-two on the averaeje! 

Such was the result of that damning test. Here it is; study it for your.self. 
It points an accusing finger at the principals who arc responsible for acts which 
disgrace American journalism. It proves that Senator lx)rinier and Edward 
Hines have been made victims of a conspiracy more atrocious than that waged 
against Dreyfus. 

AVHAT WAS ATTEAIP'l'El). 

Burns detectives in the eni])loy of Funk, general manager of the International 
Harvester Company, and James Keeley, officiating editor of the Chicago 
I ribune, were in Chicago shadowing Charles AIcGowan in the latter part of 
October, 1911. One of these detectives, A. C. Bailey, (‘iijoyod the complete 
confidence of AIcGowan, and knew that the latter wan to make a settlement 
with C. h. \A ieh(‘ for losses sustained by reason of his retention for thirty 
days as a witness in the Ixudmer case. Bailey, Funk and Keeley knew 
that this .settlement was made. Had they deemed it an illegitimate settlement 
they could and should have ordered the arrest of AIcGowan, and thus have 
caught him in actual possession of bribery money. 

Knowing that a settlement had Ix^en made—and it was an honest settlement 
—they took no such st()). AIcGowan was permitted to return to his home in 
Klora. On •lannary (I, 1912, ho was lunxl by Bailey to a hotel in Flora, for 
the alleged purpose of operating a dictagraph on him. 

W'iMiam J. Burns certainly knew that the word of James E. Sheridan, his 
private secretary, would not be acce))ted as the recorder of what came through 
the wire of the dictagraph. If Burns and Funk and Keeley actually believed 
AIcGowan guilty; if they had reason to believe that he would make a confession 
in the room of that Toronto hotel—what would have been the plain course open 
to them? A'ot the employment of a boy detective, unskilled in stenography, but 
the services of a trained court reporter from Toronto. 

’Lhat such would have been the course pursued by fair and honest investigators 
is so clear that it need not be discussed. Such a stenographer could have taken 
a transcri])t of all said in the adjoining room. I’lie sworn word of such a 
stenographer would have been accepted in any court of law, and would have l)een 
conclusive Ix'fore the Dillingham ('ommittie. The denials of AIcGowan would 
have Ix’cn unheeded. All this is obvious. 

Instead of adopting this rational and honest jKilicy, what was done? The dis¬ 
credited Bailey and the slinking Kerr were placed in the r’oom witli AIcGowan, 
and the “boy stenographer’’ located in an adjoining apartment. If Sheridan 
then really took any notes, experts declare that they were not exhibited to the 
Comniittee. A week later and we find AA'illiam J. Burns in Toronto attempting 
to Irighten the AIcGowans over a telephone. Burns then leaves Toronto in 
doubt whether or not Charles AIcGowan will fly for safety. A few days later 
and a hint of the plot is revealed to Edward Hines, who promptly calls the 
Burns bluff. 'I'he e.xjwsure of Sheridan followed inevitably when stenographic 
exjrerts glanced at his notes. 

Did Bailey, Kerr and Sheridan atl(;mpt this fraud on their own initiative? 
Did they assume this tremendous res])onsibility without authority from some one 
“higher u]>?” If so, who were the individuals who decreed that the reputation 
of Charles AIcGowan should lie blasted and his career ruined ? AAJiat object did 
tliese conspirators have in mind? 


AATHAT -WAS SAID; 

Mr. Pierce. “How long have you two gentle¬ 
men been around the city?” 

Mr. Bailey. “Why, about tw'o weeks, I think, 
I have been here.” 

Mr. Pierce. “Have you been around here as 
long as that, Mr. Kerr?” 

Mr. Kerr. “I believe I have been here for 
pretty nearly three weeks.” 

Mr. Pierce. "Three weeks. You have seen 
quite a bit of the sights around here? ’ 

Mr. Bailey. “Why, we have not taken in 
many; sights; at least, I have not. I have not 
been anywhere, very much, since I have been 
here.” 

Mr. Pierce. “Of course you have l^eji 
around the Capiiol more or less?" 

Mr. Bailey. "Yes; I have been around the 
Capitol.” 

Mr. Pierce. “Been around the Senate Office 
Building? Have you heard any of the hearings 
around?” 

Mr. Bailey. “No. I was in the Supreme 
Court, I think, one day—only one day.” 

Mr. Pierce. “You have not been around the 
Lorimer hearing, or the Interstate Commission 
hearing at allf” 

Mr. Bailey. “Only as a witness around the 
Lorimer hearing.” 

Mr. Pierce. “You were not in there yester¬ 
day afternoon, either of you gentlemen^' 

Mr. Kerr. “I believe I was in there yesterday 
morning.” 

Mr. Pierce. “You did not hear the testimony 
yesterday afternoon of the young lady witnessf 
I believe that you were connected with that. 
Mr. Bailey.” 

Mr. Bailey, “yes, but I did not hear any 
of it.” 

Mr. Pierce. "Yon did not hear any of itt” 
Mr. Bailey. “No; I didn't hear any of the evi¬ 
dence at all in regard to that.” 

Mr. Pierce. “She made a very interesting 
witness, and some points that she brought out 
were very closely followed by all of the specta¬ 
tors. You both have been witnesses there, 
then; haven’t yout” 

Mr. Bailey. “Yes; I was a witness there —/ 
was on, I think, for two days or probably a 
little more than two days.” 

Mr. Pierce. “You are a defective, Mr. Baileyf” 
Mr. Bailey. “Why, 1 call myself an investiga¬ 
tor. Some people call me a detective.” 

Mr. Pierce. “Mr. Kerr was there as a witness 
tvilh you. wasn't hef” 

Mr. Bailey. “Yes - Mr. Kerr.” 

Mr. Pierce. “He followed right on after you, 
as (it) I remember correctlyf” 

Mr. Bailey. “Yes; Mr. Kerr followed me on 
the witness-stand, 1 think, if I remember 
rightly; yes." 

Mr. Pierce. “You were on for more than one 
day?” 

Mr. Kerr. “No; I teas only on one time. I 
believe that it was the understanding, however, 
that I should go on again; but I have not been 
advised definitely as to whether or not I will 
go on again.” 

Mr. Pierce. “That is, you are still retained 
here; are yout” 

Mr. Kerr. “I believe I am; but I am very 
anxious to get away.” 

Mr. Pierce. “Of course you are collecting 
your three-dollar fee aren't you, along every 
day?” 

Mr. Kerr. “I have not been advised to that 
effect.” 

Mr. Pierce. “It is rather hard work, all 
right.” 

Mr. Kerr. “I certainly would prefer other em¬ 
ployment. if 1 can call this employment. It is 
very hard to fill in the time.” 

Mr. Pierce. “You arc anxious to get back, 
too. I supiiose, Mr. Bailey?” 

Mr. Bailey. "Yes; I am very anxious to get 
bark. I have several matters that should be 
taken up. I should have been away from here — 
well, a week or more ago. at least—to take up 
a very important matter.” 

Mr. Pierce. “You are both anxious to get 
away?” 

Mr. Kerr. “I know I am.” 

Mr. Pierce. “Hoto long is this conversation 
supposed to be carried along? Can you tell me, 
Mr. Bailey?" 

Mr. Bailey. "No; 1 can’t tell you the exact 

length of time, Mr.-” 

Mr. Pierce. “Do you know, Mr. Kerr?” 

Mr. Kerr. “Why, if we are to be governed 
by the actual time that the conversation took 
place in Toronto, I believe that the interesting 
part, or the part which pertains to the case 
covered a period of about twenty minutes to a 
half an hour.” 

Mr. Pierce. “Twenty minutes to a half an 
hour?" 

Mr. Kerr. “I'es.” 

Mr. Pierce. “We ivill carry on the conversa¬ 
tion that length of time, I suppose.” 

Mr. Kerr. “Why. I have not been instructed 
by any person as to the length of time that the 
conversation will go on here. I will say that 
we were in the room, though, about an hour and 
a half.” 

Mr. Pierce. “This testimony which Sheridan 
took—nvas that supposed to cover that length 
of time?” 

Mr. Kerr. “Why. Mr. Sheridan took very 
little of the total conversation that occurred in 
the room. The only conversation that he took 
ivas evidence that had to do with this case — 
that is, that was considered as incriminating 
evidence, as I undei stand.” 

■ Mr. Pierce. “As you understand?” 

Mr. Kerr. “Yes. sir." 

Mr. Pierce. “You say you have been around 
the city quite a bit, Mr. Bailey, since you have 
been here?” 

Mr. Bailey. "Well, I have not taken in many 
of the sights. I have been to the Capitol, and 
over to the Howard Institute one day; but out¬ 
side of that 1 have not taken in anything.” 

Mr. Pierce. “Of course, it has been rather 
cold tor sight-seeing?” 

Mr. Bailey. “Not only that; I have been ex¬ 
pecting to be called at any time before the Com¬ 
mittee. and I have been down here at the Senate 
House every day. practically all day.” 

Mr. Pierce. “Mr. Bailey has been along- 

Mr. Kerr has been along with you, I suppose?” 

Mr. Bailey. "Yes; we usually have been to¬ 
gether since we have been in Washington. We 
spent most of the time together." 

Mr. Pierce. “There is quite a bit to see in 
the city. You have had plenty of time to get 
around.” 

Mr. Bailey. “tVell, I have seen most of the 
sights here on previous occasions. 1 have been 
here a number of times, and spent more or less 
time in Washington.” 

Mr. Pierce. “So that you are not very much 
interested?” 

Mr. Bailey. “No; 1 am interested, but at the 
same time it is not like a person that has never 
seen these things.” 

Mr. Pierce. “I really, myself, have not had 
time to get around at all, as much as 1 would 
like to.” 

Mr. Kerr. “I would like very much to go 
through the Treasury Department. 1 imagine 
that would be a very, very interesting trip.” 

Mr. Pierce. “Yes; I should think that it 
would.” 

Mr. Kerr. “1 have been through the Na¬ 
tional Museum of Art over here, and the State 
Capitol. Those are about the only two places 
that I have been, with the exception of the 
theatres, of course.” 


"WHAT SHERIDAN RECORDED; 


fitrange Voice. “You were not in yesterday 
afternoon, were you?” 

jlr. Kerr. “I was in yesterday morning." 


Air. Bailey. “I did not hear any of the evi¬ 
dence regarding that.” 

Strange Voice. “-” 

Strange Voice. “Made a very interesting wit¬ 
ness -” (Break.) 


jjr. Bailey. (Break.) “Two days and possibly 
a liftle more than two days.” 




Air. Bailey. “Mr. Kerr followed me on the 
i,;HjHSs stand. if I remember." 


jVjr. Kerr. "I was only on one tune. It was 
the understanding, hoxvever. that I should go on 
agai>^- ^ have not been advised as yet 
/ will go on again. (Break.) I am 
rery anxious to get away." 


Ai]’. Kerr. “I have not been advised to that 
effee*- 


Air. 


Kerr. (Break.) “Governed by the actual 


time conversation took place in Toronto. 
I beif^'^^ interesting part, but the part 

which P^i'tains to this case covers a period of 
about taventy minutes to a half hour. (Break.) 
I sho^^^^ were in the room about an hour 

and a ^>dlf. ’ 


jVlj. |Kerr. “Mr. Sheridan took very little of 
the 'j’^ak) conversation that occurred in the 
i-oonm only conversation he took was the 
evid I had to do tvith this case—that is. 

inci ■ 'ting evidence, as I understand it. 


RESULT OF FIRST TEST: Sheridan’s fail ure to repor 


“Have you been interested in the 
“No.” 

“From reading it in the papers, I 

“What is that?" 

“Reading it in the papers. I 


WHAT WAS SAID: 

Air. Pierce. ’’You did not mean the State 
Capitol, did you, .Mr. Kerr? You meant the 
•National Capitol?” 

Mr. Kerr. "Yes; I meant the National 
Capitol.” 

.Mr. Pierce. “You said ‘the State Capitol.’ I 
believe.” 

Air. Kerr. “Yes. No; I was wrong there. I 
meant the National Capitol.” 

Mr. I’ierce. “Of course the correction will 
not be needed. You say that you have been 
more or less interested in the Lorimer case for 
some time. .Mr. Bailey—three years?" 

Air. Bailey. “Well, through my investigation, 
yes; since I have been working on this inves¬ 
tigation, of course I was more or less interested 
in it.” 

Mr. Pierce. “And the papers, of course, have 
been full of it; and you followed it through 
them only?” 

.Mr. Bailey. “Well, I have not followed it 
very closely but I have read some of it, of 
course. I have not really followed it closely, 
though; in fact, I followed it very little until I 
took this matter up with regard to McGowan.” 

Mr. Pierce. “I have noticed the Chicago pa¬ 
pers have been all full of the case, so I didn't 
know but you had followed it through that.” 

Air. Bailey. "Well, you see, 1 spend very little 
time in Chicago. I am out around in other 
cities most of my time. I may get in Chicago 
over night, and leave in the morning for some 
other place* or the next day; and I spend very 
little time in Chicago.” 

Air. Kerr; “Mr. Cornelius suggests talking 
on the Columbus affair down there. I don’t 
know whether it would be advisable -to go on 
with that, or would the Committee desire us 
talking on that?” 

Mr. Pierce. “I don’t suppose that they really 
would.” 

Mr. Kerr. “Probably not.” 

Mr. Pierce. “Air. Kerr, you are on from De¬ 
troit; are you not?” 

Mr. Kerr. “Yes; I am in Detroit pretty 
much, although I am out of the city a lot. De¬ 
troit is my home. My residence is there.” 

Mr. Pierce. "And you came on here for this 
one case alone—that is, the Lorimer case?” 

Mr. Kerr. “Yes; I came over here f7om To¬ 
ronto.” 

Air. Pierce. 
case before?’ 

Air. Kerr. 

Air. Pierce. 
mean?” 

Air. Kerr. 

Air. Pierce. 
mean.” 

Air. Kerr. “Oh, I have read considerable of 
it in the papers; yes.” 

Air. Pierce. “In the Detroit papers or in the 
Chicago papers?” 

Air. Kerr. “Oh, Detroit papers, or papers that 
I would get wherever I was, you know; mostly, 
though, in Detroit papers." 

Air. Pierce. “Are they as interested in the 
case as the Chicago papers?" 

Air. Kerr. “What is that?" 

Air. Pierce. “Are they as interested in the 
case as the Chicago papers?” 

Air. Kerr. “Oh. no; there is very little in the 
Detroit papers on this case. They don't seem 
to pay much attetition to the cases, although I 
read considerable in the Detroit papers of Mr. 
Carnegie’s testimony in Washington. I don’t 
know whether it teas before the same Commit¬ 
tee or not, but” - 

Air. Pierce. “I don’t believe that was before 
the same committee.” 

Air, Kerr. “I don't know. I don't think it 
was. however. I was very much amused wlien 
I read an article in the Detroit paper stating 
that Air. Carnegie got a check, or something, 
for his time, and was going to have it framed.” 

-Mr. Pierce. “What is that again? I didn’t 
understand that.” 

Air. Kerr. “Why, if I remember the article 
rightly, Mr. Carnegie got a check or a voucher 
for his fee as a witness, and I believe the article 
stated that he was not going to have it cashed, 
but was going to keep it as a sort of souvenir.” 

Mr. Pierce. “Preserve it, I suppose?” 

Mr. Kerr. “Preserve it; yes.” 

Mr. Pierce. “Have it framed?” 

Mr. Kerr. “I believe that he was going to 
have it framed; yes.” 

Air. Pierce. “You fellows, when you go back, 
ought to get your money framed.” 

Mr. Bailey. “Yes; we ought to. That’s right. 
I haven’t heard anything about getting any, 
yet.” 

Air. Pierce. “I believe that you have your ex¬ 
penses, don't you? You are witnesses in the 
case.” 

Air. Bailey. “I don't know much about that. 
I don’t remember ever collecting any witness 
fees or any expenses for anything that I testi¬ 
fied on. anywhere.” 

Air. Kerr. “This is the first time I ever ap¬ 
peared before a committee, or the first time that 
I ever was involved either as a witness or had 
any charges put before me. I never had any 
court experience at all." 

Air. Pierce. “It must be very trying all 
right.” 

.Mr. Kerr. “Oh. I was a little nervous when 
I first went on the stand; but after I was on 
there a short time. I believe. I was composed.” 

Air. Pierce. “In following this Lorimer case, 
you say the papers all over the country have 
been more or less filled with the account of the 
hearings. You say. Bailey, that you never 
remember reading of it before you were em¬ 
ployed by your agency?” 

Air. Bailey. “Oh. yes; I have read some of 
the testimony at different times, but I never 
followed it closely, you know.” 

Air. Pierce. “Not closely at all?” 

Mr. Bailey. “No; not until after I took up 
this case, you know; this investigation. Then, 
of course, I folloioed it more or less closely; 
but there were times when I was on that in¬ 
vestigation that I could not very well take it 
up. I don't think they had very much of it 
in the Regina or Moose Jaw papers, or any of 
those places. I don't think they had anything, 
in fact.” 

Air. Pierce. “But, of course, through your in¬ 
terest in the case, after you tvere employed by 
these parties that were interested in it, you fol¬ 
lowed it pretty closely; didn't you?” 

Air. Bailey. "Well. I suppose you would call 
it closely. I read considerable of it when I was 
around where I could get papers, you know, 
that had much of it in.” 

Air. Kerr. “But you did not read any of it 
when you were up in Canada, eh?” 

Air. Bailey. “No; I don’t think it treated up¬ 
on it very much in the Canadian papers. I 
don't remember seeing any of it at all in the 
Canadian papers.” 

Air. Kerr. “What was your impression of the 
case?" 

Air. Bailey. “Oh. I didn't have much of an 
impression of it; I didn't form any opinion 
about it at all. I was not familiar with it 
enough for that. Harry.” 

Mr. Pierce. “You say you did not form any 
opinion at all?” 

Mr. Bailey. “I have not formed any opinion 
in regard to the outcome of the case, or any¬ 
thing like that. That is what I thought Mr. 
Kerr meant by his question there.” 

Mr. Kerr. “No; I just wanted to know what 
your opinion was on it. I probably should not 
have asked that question—about the only thing 
I could think of at the time.” 


WHAT SHERIDAN RECORDED; 


t the “strange voice’’ was absolute. He did not 


Air. Bailey; “During my investigation, yes. 
(Break.) I have been working on th is i ni:, 
gation more or less.” (Break.) 


Air. Bailey. “7 have not followed it very 
closely. (Break.) I have not really followed 
it closely, though. (Break.) Took this matter 
up in regard to McGowan.” 


Mr. Bailey. “You see, I spend very little time 
in Chicago. I am (break) I may go into Chi¬ 
cago over night and leave Chicago.” (Break.) 


Strange Voice. “Have you been in the case 
before?” 


Air. Kerr. “In the papers; yes.” 

Strange Voice. “Detroit papers?" 

Air. Kerr. “Detroit papers, or papers I loc 
at wherever—mostly all Detroit papers." 

Strange Voice. (Break.) “Chicago papers 


Mr. Kerr. “Oh no; there is very little in the 
Detroit papers on this case. They don't seem 
to pay much attention to this case.” 


Mr. Kerr. “I was a little nervous tvhen I first 
went on the stand, but after I ivas on a short 
time (break) composed.” 

Strange Voice. (Break.) ''Lorimer case. 
The papers all over the country." 


Mr. Bailey. “7 read some of the testimony at 
different times, but I never followed it closely 
(break) not till after (break) of course I fol¬ 
lowed it more or less closely (break) then I 
could not very well follow it. I don’t think 
they had very much in the Regina or Moose- 
joint papers.” 


Air. Bailey. 
closely." 


“1 suppose you tvould call it 


Mr. Kerr. “What was your impression on th( 
case?" 

Mr. Bailey. “7 did not have much of an im 
pression. (Break.) 7 was not familiar will 
it enough. Harry (break) regard to the out 
come of the case.” 


Mr. Kerr. “7 just wanted to know what your 
opinion on it was." (Break.) 


* * vj I vy 1 II iv^^ I I 1 • 4311 crifJoIl S rolliJrc CO rcpOiL Ovioiij^c vvii^c yy od n C UK] IIOC 

record the words or convey the meaning of a single sent spoken by IMr. Pierce. Sheridan gathered 
only 32 out of the 482 words spoken by Mr. Pierce on tl c Lorimer case. Yet the Chicago Tribune calls 
this a “triumph’’ for the forger of the Toronto notes. 


NOTE:—The reader is referred to Page 4 of the pamphlet, “THE 


PLOT THAT FAILED,” for the history of the events which led to the exposure revealed on this sheet. 


SECOND TEST 


WHAT WAS SAID; 

Mr. Ward. “To begin with, I want to get the 
opinion of you if this is a case of forced hospi¬ 
tality?” 

Air. Bailey. “If this is a case of forced hos¬ 
pitality?” 

Mr. Ward. “Yes.” 

Mr. Bailey. “Well. I don’t know. It looks a 
little bit like that to me.” 

Mr. Ward. “What has been your connection 
with this case other than Mr. McGowan?” 

Mr. Bailey. “Why. I have made the investi¬ 
gation on Mr. McGowan. That is about the ex¬ 
tent of my work on this case.” 

Mr. Ward. “Well, now, to begin with, I want 
I I- - of you gentlemen if it has occurred 
to ydU tFat it is a long time between drinks?” 

Mr. Kerr. “Yes. I suggest that we have a 
bottle of Budwelser.” 

Mr. Bailey. “Well, I second the motion.” 

Mr. Ward. “What was that banquet in De¬ 
troit?” 

Mr. Bailey. “Oh, there are so many banquets 
around the New Year’s, you know, that I 
couldn’t remember' just any particular banquet 
that took place there. 

Mr. Ward. “Was that on New Year’s eve?” 

Mr. Bailey. “Well, on account of New Year’s 
coming on Sunday, the conditions of the law 
there in regard to selling liquor, some held it 
on Saturday and some on Sunday; different 
places held it on different occasions, you see.” 

Mr. Ward. “Who is the mayor up there now?” 

Mr. Kerr. “Billy Thompson.” 

Air. Ward. “Who is the police magistrate?” 

Mr. Kerr. “Frank Crowell.” 

Mr. Ward. “Is there any talk up there on 
general politics?” 

Mr. Kerr. “Is there any talk on general poli¬ 
tics?” 

Mr. Ward. “Yes; Presidential politics.” 

Mr. Kerr. “Oh, there naturally would be.” 

Mr. Ward. “What is the sentiment up in that 
country for Colonel Roosevelt?” 

Mr. Kerr. “Why, I believe Roosevelt has a 
pretty good following up there.” 

Mr. Ward. “Considerable advertising?” 

Mr. Kerr. “I don’t know of any advertising.” 

Mr. Ward. “Have the papers said anything 

Mr. Kerr. “Oh, there is more or less in the 
newspapers regarding the candidates on the 
Republican ticket, or whatever you want to call 
it. I believe Mr. Taft is very strong up there. 
I don’t follow politics very closely, although 1 
should judge that I am in the prosecuting at¬ 
torney’s office two or three times a week. My 
attorney is in that building and is assistant 
prosecuting attorney.” 

Mr. Ward. “AVIio is the prosecutor now?” 

Air. Kerr. “Mr. Shepard—Hugh Shepard.” 

Mr. Bailey. “Where are you from?” 

Mr. Ward. “Chicago.” 

Mr. Bailey. “Oh, you live in Chicago, do 
you?” 

Mr. Ward. “Yes.” 

- Air. Bailey. “That is a pretty nice city, isn’t 
it?” 

Mr. Ward. "Yes; it is quite a large city.” 

Mr. Bailey. “Have you been living there 
very long?” 

Mr. Ward. “Yes; four or five years.” 

, Mr. Bailey. "You like it better than your pre¬ 
vious place of abode, do you?” 

Mr. Ward. “Oh, yes; yes.” 

Mr. Bailey. “It is funny I never met you 
around Chicago, sir.” 

Air. Ward. “Well, I am pretty busy most of 
the time, on the way from Chicago to Washing¬ 
ton and back again. 7 generally have been tvith 
the Senator on his trips back and forth, and 
"Of course, while this investigation has been go¬ 
ing on I have been connected tvith that more 
or less all the time.” 

Mr. Bailey. “Well, I meet so many people 
around Chicago that I remember an awful lot 
of faces around there after seeing them a time 
or two, you know. Anyway, I am pretty good 
at remembering faces.” 

Mr. Kerr. "You could pretty nearly make 

your home here, couldn’t you, Mr. -, I have 

forgotten your name.” 

Mr. Ward. “My name is Ward.” 

Mr. Kerr. “Mr. Ward?” 

Mr. Ward. “Yes. No; I could not—not if I 
had my own way about it.” 

Mr. Kerr. “Well, I mean, you are here so 
much.” 

Mr. Ward. “Oh, I am here a great deal of 
the time; yes. I spend my time entirely be¬ 
tween here and Chicago.” 

Mr. Kerr. “Do you like this?” 

Mr. Ward. “Oh, very much, as a city. It is 
a beautiful place, and all that; but there is not 
enough going on here, as a rule, to interest a 
person who has lived in a large city.” 

Mr. Kerr. “I see.” 

Mr. Ward. “And particularly a person who 
has been connected for the last two years, as I 
have, with every phase of this investigation, 
both here and in Chicago and in Springfield. 
I happened to be with the Senator at the time. 
That is, I was his secretary at the time that he 
was elected to the Senate.” 

Mr. Kerr. “7 see.” 

Mr. Bailey. “Was not this matter taken up 
in Chicago at one time?” 

Mr. Ward. “In some of its phases; yes. What 
have you reference to particularly?” 

Mr. Bailey. “To the Lorimer investigation.” 

Mr. Ward. “Yes — yes; it has been taken up 
there on two different occasions, as I remember; 
first in October, or late in the fall of 11)10, and 
then again this Committee went out there this 
summer and sat there for a number of weeks 
taking testimony there in Chicago.” 

Mr. Bailey. “Well. I have reference to the 
October session, I guess, when Mr. McGowan 
and I came back from the West." 

Mr. Ward. “Oh yes." 

Mr. Bailey. “7 think, if I remember rightly, 
they were in session there at that time.” 

Air. Kerr. “Did you come back in October?” 

Mr. Bailey, “yes; in October.” 

Mr. Ward. “What time in October?” 

Mr. Bailey. “Oh. 1 forget; somewhere around 
about the 18th, 19th, or 20th. I think, if I re¬ 
member rightly, I was in Milwaukee on the 
18th. I seem to remember that very distinctly.” 

Mr. Ward. “The 18th of October?” 

Mr. Kerr. “Have you got a match?” 

Mr. Bailey. “No; I have not got a match 
just now.” 

Mr. Kerr. “Do you care for a cigar?” 

Mr. Bailey. “Yes; I will take a cigar. Is it 
a good one?” 

_Mr. Kerr. “Not this one.” 

Mr. Ward. “At that meeting in the King Ed¬ 
ward Hotel, how many rounds of drinks did 
you fellows have?” 

Mr. Bailey. “Well, it is pretty hard to say. 
Neither of us are very heavy drinkers, you 
know." 

Mr. Ward. “Do you recollect how long the 
discussion ran on the McGowan matter?” 

Mr. Bailey. “Oh, I could not recall. We 
talked, I think, for about an hour and a half 
in that room that first time Mr. McGowan 
came up there; but the Lorimer matter was 
not discussed, you know, only a certain limited 
time.” 


WHAT SHERIDAN RECORDED; 


Strange Voice. “What has been your con¬ 
nection with this case other than McGowan?” 

Mr. Bailey. “Oh, I have been making an in¬ 
vestigation with McGowan (break) has been 
about the extent of my work on this case.” 

Strange Voice. (Break.) “It occurred to you 
that it is a long time between drinks.” 


Strange Voice. (Break.) “With this investi¬ 
gation, both here and in Chicago and at Spring- 
field.” 


Mr. Bailey. “Was not this matter taken up 
in Chicago at one time?” 

Strange Voice. (Break.) “Yes.” 

Mr. Bailey. “To the Lorimer investigation?” 

Strange Voice. “Yes; it has been taken up on 
two different occasions, first in the fall of 1910 
(break), taking testimony in Chicago.” 


Mr. Bailey. "7 have reference to the October 
session.” 


Strange Voice. “7 say, if 1 remember right, 
they were in session there at that time.” 

Mr. Kerr. "Did you come back in October?" 
Strange Voice. "Yes. in October.” 

Mr. Bailey. (Break.) “7 think, if I remem¬ 
ber rightly. I was in Milwaukee on the 18th." 


Strange Voice. “Eighteenth of October.” 


Strange Voice. (Break.) “In the King Ed¬ 
ward Hotel.” (Break.) 

Mr. Bailey. (Break.) “Pretty hard to say; 
neither of us are pretty heavy drinkers.” 


WHAT WAS SAID; 

Mr. Ward. “Did it occur to you at that time 
that it was rather cold weather?” 

Mr. Bailey. “Very cold. We had the win¬ 
dows closed. I know that the room was closed 
up very tight, and I think we had the tran¬ 
soms closed, if I remember rightly.” 

Air. Ward. “How cold does it get there at 
that time of year; do you know?” 

Mr. Bailey. “Well, I heard them say it was 
twelve or fourteen below.” 

Mr. Ward. “Oh, it gets that cold in Chicago. 
It was sixteen or seventeen in Chicago, as I 
recollect it, and about twelve or fourteen be¬ 
low here in Washington, even.” ^ 

Mr. Kerr. “7 believe on the Sunday it was 
eight or nine below zero.” 

Mr. Ward. “Was that the Sunday you were 
in the room up there?” 

Mr. Kerr. “Yes; we were in a room that Sun¬ 
day, but we went down to the Walker House 
with Mac for luncheon, and I remember we 
walked down, and I remember distinctly that 
I thought my ears were frozen on the way 
down. It was awful cold, and there was an 
awful sharp wind off the lake, and we took that 
route down. That is, we did not go down King 
street; we went down —7 believe we took the 
street down that the Walker House is on. 1 
don’t just recall that street.” 

Air. Ward. “How far is the King Edward 
Hotel from the lake?” 

Mr. Kerr. Oh, it is three or four squares; 
maybe it is five or six, but not any more, I 
don't think. It is pretty close to the lake.” 

Mr. Bailey. "Were you ever in Toronto?” 

Mr. Ward. “No. Now, on that occasion when 
you were all together and going down to the 
lake, did you stop on the way to get any 
drinks or anything to eat?” 

Mr. Kerr. '-Not on a Sunday. We went to 
the Walker House and had a luncheon; no.” 

Mr. Ward. “Is Toronto a ’dry’ town?” 

Mr. Kerr. “Well, I always was under the im¬ 
pression that all Canadian towns were pretty 
’dry,’ for this reason; That the law piovides 
over there for all hotels and bars to close their 
sample rooms or bar rooms at, I think, 11 
o’clock week nights, and 7 o’clock on Saturday 
nights, and all day Sunday. Now, 1 never can 
recall an instance where there have been any 
prosecutions, you know, or read any articles, or 
where you could ever get a drink in Canada 
on a Sunday, unless you got it in a high-grade 
or first-class hotel in your own room.” 

Air. Ward. “7 always understood that—that 
the province of Ontario was very strict in laws 
of that kind, in what you might call in this 
country the 'blue laws;’ but that was what 
set me to wondering, when the testimony came 
out in this case down here, that there were 
drinks in the hotel on that Sunday night; I 
didn't suppose that they could be gotten.” 

Mr. Kerr. “Oh, yes; you can get a drink; I 
think, at some time about two o’clock in the 
morning, isn't it, that you can't get any? Then 
you can get it at six o'clock. I remember that 
now. They have a kind of a sub-bar, as I un¬ 
derstand it, that they serve from to the rooms, 
but I believe the other is served from the bar. 
While I am not sure about it. I believe -” 

Mr. Bailey. “Well, we had no difficulty in 
yetting a drink in our room at -any time, with¬ 
out it teas after two, or something, very late in 
the morning or early in the morning, whichever 
you would call it.” 

Mr. Ward. “Do the drug stores sell it up 
there?” 

Mr Bailey. “I never got any at the drug 
store. They may do it. I know they do in lots 
of places—for medicinal purposes, though, I 
think, as a rule.” 

Mr. Ward. “I know of a little town in HiW 
nois that had local option, and I think they 
started up about twenty drug stores in a town 
of 2,000 people. It was a common saying 
around there that everybody in town sold it, 
and every institution sold it except the post 
office.” 

Mr. Bailey. “Well, that may be a fact. I 
don’t know anything about that.” 

Mr. Ward. “Did you work on the McNamara 
case?” 

Mr. Bailey. “Yes; I worked on the McNamara 
case to some extent; not to any-” 

Mr. Ward. “Out on the coast—any features 
of it out on the coast?” 

Mr. Bailey. “I never went on the coast on the 
McNamara case at all; no. I went to Milwaukee 
and made the investigation up there for the 
Milwaukee Fuel Company, when that explo¬ 
sion took place up there.” 

Mr. Ward. “You travel around a good deal, 
don’t you?” 

Mr. Bailey. “Yes; I travel around a great 
deal.” 

Air. Ward. “On the road a great deal?” 

Mr. Bailey. “A great deal.” 

Mr. Ward. “That was true in the last year, 
the early part of the year; was it?” 

Mr. Bailey. “Why, I travel around a great 
deal all of the time. Of course I can’t recall 
whether I was traveling around just at the first 
of the year or not, but I travel around a great 
deal at all times. I don’t spend very much 
time in one place, without the operation is a 
iengthy operation, a drawn-out operation.” 

Air. Ward. “7 suppose, in your travels 
around, you probably run on little incidents in 
connection with the McNamara case, and prob¬ 
ably in connection with your Columbus case, or 
whatever that was, and you pick up information 
generally, don’t you, wherever you go around 
the country and even when you are on those 
trips you pick up things connected with this 
investigation?” 

Mr. Bailey. “Oh, anything that I would pick 
up connected tvith any investigation, I would 
report it to our office, you know. That would 
be natural. We don't overlook any bets, if we 
can help it. you know, in our line." 

Mr. Ward. “Yes; I guess not. The conver¬ 
sation seems to be flagging.” 

Mr. Bailey. "Yes; I don’t know what seems 
to be the trouble. I can’t- find much to talk 
about.” 

Mr. Kerr. “You were on the Columbus case, 
weren’t you? That is, didn’t you spend a long 
time on that Columbus case?” 

Mr. Bailey. “Yes; I think I was on the Co¬ 
lumbus case probably three or four months; I 
don’t know just how long. I think I took it 
up some time in May, and worked on it until 
about the middle of .Tuly—something like that. 
It might have been longer. I think we went— 
I think we went to Columbus and testified later 
than that. The operation was really over as 
far as getting the evidence.” 

Mr. Ward. “What time was that?” 

Mr. Bailey. “That was in—the operation, I 

think, terminated in July. Then I think we 

went to testify some time in September. It 
was the latter part of August, I think, when 
Diegle was tried there.” 

Mr. Ward. “What year was that?” 

Mr. Bailey. “That was 1911.” 

Mr. Ward. “Did you carry that work along 
in connection with your work on this case?” 

Mr. Bailey. “Oh, no.” 

Mr. Ward. “When did you go to Toronto?” 

Mr. Bailey. “Well, I left Detroit for Toronto, 
I think, on the—on the second of January, 1912, 
if I recall rightly.” 


WHAT SHERIDAN RECORDED; 


- 


Mr. Kerr. “We went down to the Walker 
House with Mac for luncheon, and I reiAember 
distinctly I thought my ears were frozen on 
the way down, (break) and we took that 
(break) 7 believe we took (break) that the 
Walker House is on.” 


t- 


( 

{ 


Strange Voice. “Pick up things in connection 
ivith this investigation.” 


Mr. Bailey. “That would he natural.” 


Strange Voice. “Did you carry that work 
along in connection with the work in this case.'” 
Mr. Bailey. “No.” 

Strange Voice. “When did you go to To¬ 
ronto?" 

Air. Bailey. (Break.) “7 went to Detroit.” 
(Break.) 


WHAT WAS SAID; 

Hr. Ward. “Now, then, I want to ask you a 
question about that meeting there in the hotel 
that night. I do not want to eticroach on the 
prerogatives of the Committee in asking these 
questions, and I do not intend any discourtesy 
to them in doing it; but there is a feature of 
it that I would like to know about, and that is. 
if you gentlemen had anything there in the way 
of refreshments in the room at that time?” 

Air. Bailey. “At what time?” 

Air. Ward. “At the time this conversation 
took place.” 

Air. Bailey. “Oh. yes; tve had a bottle of beer 
there. I think — Budweiser. I think. Mac and 
I generally drank Budweiser if we could get it." 

Air. Kerr. “7 believe we had two bottles 
each.” 

Air. Bailey. “Well, that may have been so. 
Harry.” 

Air. Ward. "M’hat was that story you related 
up there that evening. Mr. Kerr? Do you recol¬ 
lect what it was about?” 

Air. Kerr. “Oh. I related a couple of stories. 
I related a story that pertained to George B. 
Cox of Cincinnati. Do you want me to tell it 
to you?” 

Air. Ward. “Why. no; I don’t believe I care. 
I just want to know if it had any bearing on 
this case, or if it had any connection with this 
case in any way.” 

Mr. Kerr. “No; it had no connection tvith it, 
but I was always a great admirer of Mr. Cox, 
for this reason. That I understood that—that 
is, they told me when 1 went to Cincinnati that 
he worked himself up from a bar-tender.” 

Mr. Bailey. “Well, I don’t think we want to 
go into that, discuss that thing, because we 
want to talk here and not to discuss that thing 
at any length. I don't think we want to do 
that.” 

Mr. Ward. “Well, that is all right. I don’t 
care to know about it." 

Mr. Kerr. “Well, anyway, it was only told 
in the form of a story. There was really no 
object in telling the story.” 

Mr. Ward. “Did you have in mind, at the 
time this conversation was going on, that you 
gentlemen would go out that evening around 
the town?” 

Mr. Bailey. “7 don't remember whether we 
did or not. We may have. I don't recall that 
just now, at this time. We may have. Charlie 
generally wanted to take a run around, and 1 
generally fell in line with him.” 

Mr. Kerr. "7 did not personally care about 
going out, because I don't go out on excursions 
of that kind. I have only been married a little 
over two years.” 

Mr. Bailey. “Well, I have been married con¬ 
siderably longer than that. Of course business 
sometimes calls you in ways that you wouldn't 
go otherwise, don't you know. (After a pause.) 
Well, we were discussing the Lorimer case. Do 
you think it will last very much longer?” 

Mr. Ward. "Oh. 1 can’t tell. I don't have any 
means of knoiving how long it would last.” 

Mr. Bailey. “It has been going on now for 
some nine or ten months, has it not?” 

Air. Ward. “The present investigation has 
been going on since last June.” 

Air. Bailey. "And have you been on the case 
ever since that, Mr. -.” 

Air. Ward. “Even before that. I was, as 
I stated before —7 was connected tvith the Sena¬ 
tor when he was elected to the United States 
Senate, and came down here as his secretary, 
and have been with him constantly ever since; 
and, of course, I was with him when the first 
investigation was had in the fall of the year 
1910, when Senator Burrows was chairman of 
the Committee, and that case was debated in 
the Sniule last spring; and I believe it was 
either on the first or second day of March. 1911, 
that the Committee took a vote on a resolution 
submitted by Senator Beveridge in the Senate, 
declaring that Senator Lorimer had not been 
legally elected to his seat. The result of that 
vote was .'/O’ 7iays and yeas, by which Sena¬ 
tor Lorimer was seated. Following that ses¬ 
sion -” 

Air. Bailey. “You are going a little too 
rapidly. I can’t quite understand you there, 
sir.” 

Mr. Ward. “Well, following that session of 
that Congress, a resolution was introduced in 
the present Congress, the first session, by Sena¬ 
tor La Follette, in which he raised the ques¬ 
tion that new evidence had been -” 

Mr. Bailey. “Pardon me just a moment; you 
are talking so fast that I can’t hardly get a 
word that you are talking about. You just go 
along as though you were reading a book. 

Mr. Ward. “No; I am not reading a book.” 

Mr. Bailey. “Well, you are-” 

Mr. Ward. “7 am just stating about this case 
in answer to your question. You asked me 
how long — ” 

Mr. Bailey. “Oh, I didn’t want you to go in it 
quite so far.” 

Air. Ward. “I did not want to detain the 
Committee here, and that is the reason I wag 
just skimming" over-” 

Air. Bailey. “You surely will not, if you go 
along at that rate; you won’t detain the Com¬ 
mittee.” 

Mr. Kerr. “Pardon me, Mr. Ward. Mr. Bur¬ 
rows was a Michigan man, ivasn’t he?" 

Air. Ward. “Yes; he lived in Kalamazoo, 
Michigan.” 

Air. Kerr. “Oh. yes.” 

Air. Ward. “And he 'has been Senator from 
Michigan for a great number of years. I 
think he has beeti in public life for about 
thirty-three years, as I recollect. He started in 
the Civil War.” 

Air. Bailey. It is pretty hard to stop this 
gentleman. He wants to do all the talking, 
doesn’t he? I don’t know why he wants to 
rattle along that way. We can’t understand 
that rapid conversation.” 

Mr. Kerr. “How do you spell his name — 
B-u-r-r-o-w-s?" 

Air. Ward. “Yes; that is correct.” 

Air. Kerr. “He has no connection with the 
Burroughs Adding Machine Company in De¬ 
troit?” 

Air. Ward. “No; the names are spelled in an 
entirely different manner. I don't know whether 
he has any connection with them or not.” 

Air. Bailey. “Do you know the Burroughs 
Adding Machine people?” 

Air. Ward. “No, I do not. I probably-” 

Air. Bailey. “They have a big plant in De¬ 
troit, you know.” 

Air. Ward. “I probably know an agent of the 
company, but I don’t know any of them.” 

Air. Bailey. “They are quite a large con¬ 
cern. They build these adding machines, you 
know.” 

Mr. Ward. “Yes. Who is connected with 
them?” 

Air. Bailey. “Mr. Lauver, for one. I know 
him very well.” 

Mr. Ward. “Whom?” 

Mr. Bailey. “Air. Lauver—L-a-u-v-e-r.” 

Air. Kerr. “I know a couple of the heads of 
that concern who were, rather, in the mechan¬ 
ical department. One is now. Let me see. I 
think a gentleman by the name of Bannard.” 


WHAT SHERIDAN RECORDED; 


Mr. Bailey. “We tvere discussing the Lori¬ 
mer case. Do you think it will last much 
longer?” 


Strange Voice. “No. I can't tell.” 

Mr. Bailey. “It has been going on notv for 
some nine or ten months, hasn't it?" 

Strange Voice. (Break.) “Ever since last 
June.” 


Strange Voice. “In the fall of the year of 
1910, when Senator (break) was Chairman of 
the Committee (break). 7 believe it was on 
the second of March (break) declaring that 
Senator Lorimer had not been legally elected 
to his seat (break). Senator Lorimer was 
(break) following that action of Congress a 
resolution was introduced (break) by Senator 
La Follette in which he” (break). 


RESULT OF SECOND TEST: Mr. Ward, the “strange voice,” spoke 770 words on matters pertaining 
to the Lorimer case. Sheridan recorded only 56 words which conveyed the meaning expressed by the 
speaker. In both tests Sheridan recorded about five per cent of what was said by the unknown “strange 
voice.” This is what the Chicago Tribune calls “amazing skill” on the part of its Burns tool. 




























16 


TH 


the wire of the dictagraph. 
McGowan guilty; if they h 
in the room of that Toronh 
to them ? i^ot the ernployr 
the services of a trained cO' 
That such would have be 
is so clear that it need not 
a transcript of all said ii 
stenographer would have b( 
conclusive before the Dilli' 
have been imheeded. All 
Instead of adopting this 
credited Bailey and the si: 
and the ‘^^boy stenographe: 
then really took any note^ 
Committee. A week later 
to frighten the McGowar 
doubt whether or not Cha 
and a hint of the plot is 
Burns bluff. The exposu 
experts glanced at his note 
Did Bailey, Kerr and 
Did they assume this trem 
^Tigher up ?” If so, who 
of Charles McGowan shor 
these conspirators have in 

For additions 

FREI 

HA 

I 


















































